Inverting Subsumption for Constructive Reasoning

We present a Logic Programming prototype implementation, working as proof-of-concept for a unified strategy proposed in our past research to solve several non-standard reasoning problems in Description Logics (DLs), denoted by Constructive Reasoning. In order to prove both the problem-independence and the logic-independence of the adopted approach, the prototype is focused on the solution of three different problems — namely Least Common Subsumer, Concept Abduction and Concept Difference — and two different, though simple and endowed with structural subsumption, DLs, i.e., EL and ALN . Accordingly to the implemented strategy, problems are formalized as conjunction of both subsumption and non-subsumption statements, causing the whole prototype to rely on a Prolog program solving subsumption. The program is built around a predicate, which on the one hand checks for the existence of subsumption relations between ground elements, providing boolean answers, and on the other hand, if inverted, exploits Prolog built-in unification to enumerate variable values making subsumption true between concept terms containing concept variables.

[1]  Franz Baader,et al.  Usability Issues in Description Logic Knowledge Base Completion , 2009, ICFCA.

[2]  Ralf Küsters,et al.  Rewriting Concepts Using Terminologies , 2000, KR.

[3]  Alexander Borgida,et al.  Computing Least Common Subsumers in Description Logics , 1992, AAAI.

[4]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  Abductive Matchmaking using Description Logics , 2003, IJCAI.

[5]  Paliath Narendran,et al.  Unification of Concept Terms in Description Logics , 2001, Description Logics.

[6]  Freddy Lecue,et al.  Capturing the Pulse of Cities : A Robust Stream Data Reasoning Approach , 2011 .

[7]  Markus Krötzsch,et al.  Concurrent Classification of EL Ontologies , 2011, International Semantic Web Conference.

[8]  Franz Baader,et al.  Computing the Least Common Subsumer w.r.t. a Background Terminology , 2004, Description Logics.

[9]  Stefan Schlobach,et al.  Explaining Subsumption by Optimal Interpolation , 2004, JELIA.

[10]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  A Unified Framework for Non-standard Reasoning Services in Description Logics , 2010, ECAI.

[11]  Franz Baader,et al.  Unification in the Description Logic EL , 2009, Description Logics.

[12]  Alexander Borgida,et al.  Towards Measuring Similarity in Description Logics , 2005, Description Logics.

[13]  Gunnar Teege Making the Difference: A Subtraction Operation for Description Logics , 1994, KR.

[14]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  Explaining Subsumption in Description Logics , 1995, IJCAI.

[15]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  Matching in Description Logics , 1999, J. Log. Comput..

[16]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  On the ( Non-) Succinctness of Uniform Interpolation in General EL Terminologies , 2012 .

[17]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  Semantic Matchmaking as Non-Monotonic Reasoning: A Description Logic Approach , 2007, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[18]  Franz Baader Least Common Subsumers and Most Specific Concepts in a Description Logic with Existential Restrictions and Terminological Cycles , 2003, IJCAI.

[19]  Boris Konev,et al.  Forgetting and Uniform Interpolation in Large-Scale Description Logic Terminologies , 2009, IJCAI.